Joint CRM
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Joint CRM
Has anyone heard of/participated in any CRM training with flight crews and mechanics?
My sense is that this has been done occasionally in the past, but the agenda has predominantly been to enlighten mechanics about the procedures and duties of the flight crew.
Has there ever been any CRM involving enlightening flight crews to procedures/duties of maintenance crews?
We have recently done a major study of communication between maintenance (NOT maintenance control but line mechanics) and pilots and found a significant level of dissatisfaction about the info provided by pilots about discrepancies on aircraft.
It occured to me that there is often joint CRM training wiht pilots and FAs about preflight briefings, etc. But I am not aware of any training that has been done regarding POST flight briefings between pilots and mechanics.
Look forward to hearing your thoughts/experiences.
My sense is that this has been done occasionally in the past, but the agenda has predominantly been to enlighten mechanics about the procedures and duties of the flight crew.
Has there ever been any CRM involving enlightening flight crews to procedures/duties of maintenance crews?
We have recently done a major study of communication between maintenance (NOT maintenance control but line mechanics) and pilots and found a significant level of dissatisfaction about the info provided by pilots about discrepancies on aircraft.
It occured to me that there is often joint CRM training wiht pilots and FAs about preflight briefings, etc. But I am not aware of any training that has been done regarding POST flight briefings between pilots and mechanics.
Look forward to hearing your thoughts/experiences.
Moderator
I am told that one of the contributors on Neil Krey's Site made reference in recent days to sim work done on this very subject ... might be worth your having a look there as well as asking the question here ....
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Rotorhead just breezing thru.....
Yes we actively encourage [in fact roster] the entire team onto CRM courses...................Admin, Ground folk, Management, Flightcrew [we don't have cabin crew] Engineering and all the contracting folk....
It really is a great awaking.....and in a surprise, we all enjoy the same beer and wine at the closing graduation...just goes to show.
Yes...incorportate all your team...the benefits are substantial.....
It really is a great awaking.....and in a surprise, we all enjoy the same beer and wine at the closing graduation...just goes to show.
Yes...incorportate all your team...the benefits are substantial.....
Last edited by Red Wine; 1st May 2003 at 22:33.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely...
While personally think that CC are a waste of time in CRM (with pilots), ground engineers are a good idea.
Perhaps then pilots can be taught how to properly write discrepancies in the tech log. Flight Engineers know how, but they are few and far between today....sadly.
Perhaps then pilots can be taught how to properly write discrepancies in the tech log. Flight Engineers know how, but they are few and far between today....sadly.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: here to eternity
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everyone who reads these boards regularly will know 411A's attitude towards both the concepts and the practices of CRM, so will be able to judge the value of his reply accordingly. 
The more people who can contribute to the safe conclusion of a flight, who can understand more or less what is going on and contribute to it, the more resources on which a captain can call, should the need arise, the better.
As part of the team aloft, when it all goes for a ball of chalk and the flightdeck is lighting up like a Christmas tree, Cabin Crew and their input are invaluable. CRM courses should always include them. I'll go further. For any but an all-freight airline, CRM courses should not be run that do not include Cabin Crew.
The more people who can contribute to the safe conclusion of a flight, who can understand more or less what is going on and contribute to it, the more resources on which a captain can call, should the need arise, the better.
As part of the team aloft, when it all goes for a ball of chalk and the flightdeck is lighting up like a Christmas tree, Cabin Crew and their input are invaluable. CRM courses should always include them. I'll go further. For any but an all-freight airline, CRM courses should not be run that do not include Cabin Crew.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where I work we got the first joint CRM F/D-CC las year. First part is specific for the function, second part together F/D+C/C. That proved to be invaluable, because if we have to work together, we need to speek the same language and to know the most of eachother's job and necessities. We were invited to talk about our past experiences and encouraged to explain what we need from eachother, what to avoid etc. An open mind is a must in a working environment where every detail counts and could make the difference. And the most you know about what could make the difference the better.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bombay saffires,
Be pleased to do so.
Take a write up about an unserviceable HSI/compass system for example. Have noticed comments in the tech log such as...
RMI points incorrectly,
HSI heading incorrect, (or best of all)
DG busted.
With comments such as these in the tech log, avionics guys need a sense of humor, to be sure.
Many pilots fail to realise that the ground engineer needs specific and detailed information to begin work, and the more the better.
Many aircraft manufacturers provide fault isolation manuals for this purpose, with specific alpha/numeric codes for discrepancies, yet sadly many companies/pilots fail to use same.
The guys on the end of the wrench (spanner) need just a little help from the flight deck.
Be pleased to do so.
Take a write up about an unserviceable HSI/compass system for example. Have noticed comments in the tech log such as...
RMI points incorrectly,
HSI heading incorrect, (or best of all)
DG busted.
With comments such as these in the tech log, avionics guys need a sense of humor, to be sure.
Many pilots fail to realise that the ground engineer needs specific and detailed information to begin work, and the more the better.
Many aircraft manufacturers provide fault isolation manuals for this purpose, with specific alpha/numeric codes for discrepancies, yet sadly many companies/pilots fail to use same.
The guys on the end of the wrench (spanner) need just a little help from the flight deck.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
joint crm
agreed, 411A. In fact I have just completed a major study (across multiple USmajors) on this subject, and one of the mechanics' biggest complaints is the "inop" write up from pilots. Completely useless in most cases. Maybe ok for a light bulb, a tray table, but not for any cockpit items or controls etc.
Mechanics long for ANY and all detail from pilots. THey commented that the more the better, and they will judge what pertains and what doesn't; they are happier to wade thru excess detail than none at all.
When we queried pilots on how much time they spent writing up a single squawk in the log, 80% marked "4 minutes or less"..........and I'm betting on the "less"
Mechanics long for ANY and all detail from pilots. THey commented that the more the better, and they will judge what pertains and what doesn't; they are happier to wade thru excess detail than none at all.
When we queried pilots on how much time they spent writing up a single squawk in the log, 80% marked "4 minutes or less"..........and I'm betting on the "less"
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I may have just been lucky in my career but I cannot remember not being met by an engineer on arrival.
Usual procedure was to discuss problems with the engineers and then agree on a sensible wording of a snag so that confusion was avoided and when a shift handover came continuity could be assured.
Bombaysaffires Sounds as though many of the operations you surveyed didn't have an engineer meet the aircraft?
I agree with 411A that the specific alphanumeric codes for problems should be used yet my last major airline, for some unexplained reason, chose not too.
Usual procedure was to discuss problems with the engineers and then agree on a sensible wording of a snag so that confusion was avoided and when a shift handover came continuity could be assured.
Bombaysaffires Sounds as though many of the operations you surveyed didn't have an engineer meet the aircraft?
I agree with 411A that the specific alphanumeric codes for problems should be used yet my last major airline, for some unexplained reason, chose not too.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BlueEagle,
yes these carriers did indeed have mechanics meet flights at the gate. However, given mechanics covering multiple gates and tight turnaround times crews were not always able to meet face to face.
Hence our interest in content of log write up, since with no face to face that is all maintenance is left with.
Interestingly, whether or not pilots and mechanics conferred on wording of squawks (snags) varied by airline, with some doing so often and others almost never. This was correlated with current political climate at the given carriers.
yes these carriers did indeed have mechanics meet flights at the gate. However, given mechanics covering multiple gates and tight turnaround times crews were not always able to meet face to face.
Hence our interest in content of log write up, since with no face to face that is all maintenance is left with.
Interestingly, whether or not pilots and mechanics conferred on wording of squawks (snags) varied by airline, with some doing so often and others almost never. This was correlated with current political climate at the given carriers.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Northern Hemisphere
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Technical defects and snag analysis
Hi all
Just thought I would add my little bit for what its worth....
After 25 years in the aviation business having test flown about seven different types and categories of aircraft, I've come to the conclusion that ultimately everyone tries to push the blame onto the next guy - and finally it lands on the lap of the pilot!
It is a fact that the pilot tries to explain the minor snag to the engineer- in detail- and then puts it down in the book. But when you realise that the snag report column is just about two inches by three inches then you can understand what he is up against. With no facilities for "staff work"- ie to clip additional sheets of paper and delaying of the rectification due to easy availability of invoking MELs the immediate snag analysis is bound to suffer. With todays availability of mobiles and other communications why can't people take the time to call and clarify?
At times it is desired that the pilot write the snag as a simple equation a+b=c, so it suggests a rectification and the actual problem can be wished away.
Even when the engineers are actually shown the problem they are in such a hurry to hand over their duty that they do not explain the snag properly to the next guy with regards to what they have seen... This is a typical communication problem within any organisation - which could prove deadly in the aviation business!
Just thought I would add my little bit for what its worth....
After 25 years in the aviation business having test flown about seven different types and categories of aircraft, I've come to the conclusion that ultimately everyone tries to push the blame onto the next guy - and finally it lands on the lap of the pilot!
It is a fact that the pilot tries to explain the minor snag to the engineer- in detail- and then puts it down in the book. But when you realise that the snag report column is just about two inches by three inches then you can understand what he is up against. With no facilities for "staff work"- ie to clip additional sheets of paper and delaying of the rectification due to easy availability of invoking MELs the immediate snag analysis is bound to suffer. With todays availability of mobiles and other communications why can't people take the time to call and clarify?
At times it is desired that the pilot write the snag as a simple equation a+b=c, so it suggests a rectification and the actual problem can be wished away.
Even when the engineers are actually shown the problem they are in such a hurry to hand over their duty that they do not explain the snag properly to the next guy with regards to what they have seen... This is a typical communication problem within any organisation - which could prove deadly in the aviation business!
Guest
Posts: n/a
........I cannot remember not being met by an engineer on arrival.
Most engineers are great to get on with. Never had any problems with any of them. Never done any CRM with any engineers.
I've learnt over time that verbal discussions are frequently lost to oblivion at their next shift change. Detailed entries in the Tech Log absolutely essential, otherwise you'll see "Tested satis - no fault found" as an understandable response. Can it be any more simple ?
As for Cabin Crew CRM, if they took the trouble to recruit a higher proportion of people with brains and basic interpersonal skills, then there would be less requirement for "Working together from a script".
Examples (only a very small sample)
Immediately upon report ----
Me - "Hi, I'm Tony"
Cabin crew - no response.
I went round each crew member in turn politely establishing their names.
Me - "Thanks, I'll try to remember all those."
Senior CC - "Liar".
Never met any of these CC before, in my life ! So much for CRM.
Me to Senior CC, before flight - "The APU won't be working today."
Senior CC - "Nothing to do with me"
Few minutes later - Senior CC - "We're out of water"
Me - "I'll check, but it may be because the APU is'nt supplying feed pressure"
Senior CC - *Big sigh* *Lots of face pulling* *In a huff* No drinks offered before or during that sector, or on the subsequent turnaround. Terse messages on intercom. Big sulk, basically, until I had a calming word (when I had time).
Only two examples. Is'nt CRM great ! Good thing that the "no-frills" operation requires minimal contact with passengers.
Nope ! It's down to decent selection of crew members in the first place. You can't train people to behave like decent human beings -either they are, or they are'nt.
I hasten to add that the above element is a minority, but my point is that CRM training will just breeze over the heads of such people.
As for the "trick cyclist" comedians they're employing to run CRM courses these days - jeez ! I'd better not go there ! I've rambled on enough.
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our mob had a test project to improve communication between pilots of incoming flights and the ground engineers. Both sides equipped with PDAs that could communicate. All codes pre-programmed in and space for additional info.
Probably fell victim to the current costs slashing.
Regarding joint CRM sessions; Carn apalling stories. If you hire fools you have an uphill struggle, but I strongly disagree with you about the impossibility of training people. Everyone is to a certain extent "educateable". But is the company willing to spend the time and money on such a thing? Or do they go with the old "divide and rule" philosophy?
And to get a bit more personal, how often do you take the time down-route to involve your cabin crew in discussions that get a bit technical? Do you try and in an accessible and pleasant way to improve their understanding of what goes on in the cockpit and what the various technical terms mean? Do you take the time to explain some basics when you have fresh new FAs? (about the AC that is!
) Someone who doesn't know what an APU is will not understand why you tell them it's not working.
Most FAs are tought exactly NOTHING about the technical part of the operation in FA school. So from where would they know?
And yes, they should take an interest themselves, and try to learn. But to do that an FA needs a very thick skin. Because many many times when you ask the pilots for an explanation on anything at all you get either laughed at, fobbed of with some silly answer or told "don't you worry your pretty little head about that dear, I'll take my coffe black with 2 lumps please".
Never meant nastily, but not the kind of attitude that inspires an FA to take an interest in tech matters.
And from reading these pages, I do get the impression that their isn't all that much mutual respect between CC and cockpit crew in many companies.
And respect is a pretty basic requirement for good cooperation IMHO.
At the same time, I do agree with you that those people who would benefit most from a good dose of CRM training are usually the ones that scoff at it.
But that's not only limited to CC Carn!
Probably fell victim to the current costs slashing.
Regarding joint CRM sessions; Carn apalling stories. If you hire fools you have an uphill struggle, but I strongly disagree with you about the impossibility of training people. Everyone is to a certain extent "educateable". But is the company willing to spend the time and money on such a thing? Or do they go with the old "divide and rule" philosophy?
And to get a bit more personal, how often do you take the time down-route to involve your cabin crew in discussions that get a bit technical? Do you try and in an accessible and pleasant way to improve their understanding of what goes on in the cockpit and what the various technical terms mean? Do you take the time to explain some basics when you have fresh new FAs? (about the AC that is!
) Someone who doesn't know what an APU is will not understand why you tell them it's not working.Most FAs are tought exactly NOTHING about the technical part of the operation in FA school. So from where would they know?
And yes, they should take an interest themselves, and try to learn. But to do that an FA needs a very thick skin. Because many many times when you ask the pilots for an explanation on anything at all you get either laughed at, fobbed of with some silly answer or told "don't you worry your pretty little head about that dear, I'll take my coffe black with 2 lumps please".
Never meant nastily, but not the kind of attitude that inspires an FA to take an interest in tech matters.
And from reading these pages, I do get the impression that their isn't all that much mutual respect between CC and cockpit crew in many companies.
And respect is a pretty basic requirement for good cooperation IMHO.
At the same time, I do agree with you that those people who would benefit most from a good dose of CRM training are usually the ones that scoff at it.
But that's not only limited to CC Carn!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quote -- "But is the company willing to spend the time and money on such a thing?!
In my experience, the minimum as required by the ruling Authority. Extremely high CC turnover (for other, long-standing reasons) means that you're also trying to hit a rapidly moving target. For example, a recent ultimatum to a large proportion of the cabin crew - "Take redundancy or move to worse pay and conditions" has also vastly increased staff turnover. Same ultimatum has led, IMHO, to short notice recruiting and a noticeably massive fall in standards.
I disagree that you can educate all people to the required standard. You're trying to overcome twenty-plus years of behavioural mis-learning in some cases. They should have been filtered out at the recruitment stage.
I'm aware of the "them and us" attitude, but that dissolves, if present at all, once cabin crew get to know me. If CRM can target anything, then that's the main one. My CRM training has contained only half-hearted targetting of that aspect, which was a bit surprising.
Quote -- "And to get a bit more personal, how often do you take the time down-route to involve your cabin crew in discussions that get a bit technical?"
I do indeed ! Please bear in mind that "no frills" turnarounds are 25 to 30 mins, no Engineers assisting. There's just about time to say "Hello again, how's it going!" as you walk to the loo. Modern glass cockpits also require much more pre-flight input than the old-fashioned stuff. We are'nt ignoring cabin crew on turnarounds, we just don't have time. My recent contribution on Jet Blast, to which we both had inputs, to describe ILS approaches, approach separation, go-around separation etc, is an example of exactly what you're referring to. It's actually fun to do !
Quote -- "Someone who doesn't know what an APU is will not understand why you tell them it's not working."
I totally agree, in which case they should declare their lack of knowledge and ask for clarification. In the case I gave, I emphasised senior cabin crew, 10 years service at least, who were fully aware of what an APU does (and it's effect upon water supplies).
Quote -- "....those people who would benefit most from a good dose of CRM training are usually the ones that scoff at it."
That must be me, then !
Back to the question re Engineer/ pilot CRM, I can't wait to be in a classroom with a bunch of them when a "trick cyclist" stands at the front and starts his inane waffling. Pilots give them some stick, despite being well under the management thumb, but Engineers don't have such inhibitions !
In my experience, the minimum as required by the ruling Authority. Extremely high CC turnover (for other, long-standing reasons) means that you're also trying to hit a rapidly moving target. For example, a recent ultimatum to a large proportion of the cabin crew - "Take redundancy or move to worse pay and conditions" has also vastly increased staff turnover. Same ultimatum has led, IMHO, to short notice recruiting and a noticeably massive fall in standards.
I disagree that you can educate all people to the required standard. You're trying to overcome twenty-plus years of behavioural mis-learning in some cases. They should have been filtered out at the recruitment stage.
I'm aware of the "them and us" attitude, but that dissolves, if present at all, once cabin crew get to know me. If CRM can target anything, then that's the main one. My CRM training has contained only half-hearted targetting of that aspect, which was a bit surprising.
Quote -- "And to get a bit more personal, how often do you take the time down-route to involve your cabin crew in discussions that get a bit technical?"
I do indeed ! Please bear in mind that "no frills" turnarounds are 25 to 30 mins, no Engineers assisting. There's just about time to say "Hello again, how's it going!" as you walk to the loo. Modern glass cockpits also require much more pre-flight input than the old-fashioned stuff. We are'nt ignoring cabin crew on turnarounds, we just don't have time. My recent contribution on Jet Blast, to which we both had inputs, to describe ILS approaches, approach separation, go-around separation etc, is an example of exactly what you're referring to. It's actually fun to do !
Quote -- "Someone who doesn't know what an APU is will not understand why you tell them it's not working."
I totally agree, in which case they should declare their lack of knowledge and ask for clarification. In the case I gave, I emphasised senior cabin crew, 10 years service at least, who were fully aware of what an APU does (and it's effect upon water supplies).
Quote -- "....those people who would benefit most from a good dose of CRM training are usually the ones that scoff at it."
That must be me, then !
Back to the question re Engineer/ pilot CRM, I can't wait to be in a classroom with a bunch of them when a "trick cyclist" stands at the front and starts his inane waffling. Pilots give them some stick, despite being well under the management thumb, but Engineers don't have such inhibitions !
Guest
Posts: n/a
maxy101
Does that mean that I must work for BA (ie. That it is essential that I sample the experience of being in their employ) ?
Alternatively, does that mean that I must work for BA (ie. That it is obvious to you, based upon my previous post, that I currently am employed by BA) ?
CRM training should, IMHO, include lessons in how to convey one's desired message in an unambiguous way. It's not easy, I must admit (especially when the recipient of the message is as dim as wot I is).
Anthony , You must work for BA!!
Alternatively, does that mean that I must work for BA (ie. That it is obvious to you, based upon my previous post, that I currently am employed by BA) ?
CRM training should, IMHO, include lessons in how to convey one's desired message in an unambiguous way. It's not easy, I must admit (especially when the recipient of the message is as dim as wot I is).